Skip to main content
Glama
bartekke8it56w2

Gemini Thinking Server

by bartekke8it56w2
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

geminithinking

Apply sequential, reflective reasoning to break down and solve complex problems using Gemini AI, with support for revision, branching, and session persistence.

Instructions

A detailed tool for dynamic and reflective problem-solving through Gemini AI. This tool helps analyze problems through a flexible thinking process powered by Google's Gemini model. Each thought can build on, question, or revise previous insights as understanding deepens.

When to use this tool:

  • Breaking down complex problems into steps

  • Planning and design with room for revision

  • Analysis that might need course correction

  • Problems where the full scope might not be clear initially

  • Problems that require a multi-step solution

  • Tasks that need to maintain context over multiple steps

  • Situations where irrelevant information needs to be filtered out

Key features:

  • Leverages Gemini AI for deep analytical thinking

  • Provides meta-commentary on the reasoning process

  • Indicates confidence levels for generated thoughts

  • Suggests alternative approaches when relevant

  • You can adjust total_thoughts up or down as you progress

  • You can question or revise previous thoughts

  • You can add more thoughts even after reaching what seemed like the end

  • You can express uncertainty and explore alternative approaches

  • Not every thought needs to build linearly - you can branch or backtrack

  • Session persistence: save and resume your analysis sessions

Parameters explained:

  • query: The question or problem to be analyzed

  • context: Additional context information (e.g., code snippets, background)

  • approach: Suggested approach to the problem (optional)

  • previousThoughts: Array of previous thoughts for context

  • thought: The current thinking step (if empty, will be generated by Gemini)

  • next_thought_needed: True if you need more thinking, even if at what seemed like the end

  • thought_number: Current number in sequence (can go beyond initial total if needed)

  • total_thoughts: Current estimate of thoughts needed (can be adjusted up/down)

  • is_revision: A boolean indicating if this thought revises previous thinking

  • revises_thought: If is_revision is true, which thought number is being reconsidered

  • branch_from_thought: If branching, which thought number is the branching point

  • branch_id: Identifier for the current branch (if any)

  • needs_more_thoughts: If reaching end but realizing more thoughts needed

  • metaComments: Meta-commentary from Gemini about its reasoning process

  • confidenceLevel: Gemini's confidence in the generated thought (0-1)

  • alternativePaths: Alternative approaches suggested by Gemini

Session commands:

  • sessionCommand: Command to manage sessions ('save', 'load', 'getState')

  • sessionPath: Path to save or load the session file (required for 'save' and 'load' commands)

You should:

  1. Start with a clear query and any relevant context

  2. Let Gemini generate thoughts by not providing the 'thought' parameter

  3. Review the generated thoughts and meta-commentary

  4. Feel free to revise or branch thoughts as needed

  5. Consider alternative paths suggested by Gemini

  6. Only set next_thought_needed to false when truly done

  7. Use session commands to save your progress and resume later

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesThe question or problem to analyze
contextNoAdditional context information
thoughtNoYour current thinking step (if empty, will be generated by Gemini)
approachNoSuggested approach to the problem
branchIdNoBranch identifier
isRevisionNoWhether this revises previous thinking
sessionPathNoPath to save or load the session file
metaCommentsNoMeta-commentary about the reasoning process
thoughtNumberYesCurrent thought number
totalThoughtsYesEstimated total thoughts needed
revisesThoughtNoWhich thought is being reconsidered
sessionCommandNoCommand to manage sessions ('save', 'load', 'getState')
confidenceLevelNoConfidence level in the generated thought (0-1)
alternativePathsNoAlternative approaches suggested
previousThoughtsNoArray of previous thoughts for context
branchFromThoughtNoBranching point thought number
needsMoreThoughtsNoIf more thoughts are needed
nextThoughtNeededYesWhether another thought step is needed

Tool Definition Quality

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral aspects like meta-commentary, confidence levels, revision, branching, and session persistence. However, it omits potential costs or rate limits associated with the Gemini AI backend, slightly reducing transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-organized with sections and bullet points, but it is overly verbose. Some redundancy exists between the 'when to use' list and 'key features'. Removing repetition would improve conciseness while retaining clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains usage flow and available actions. However, it does not explicitly specify the output structure (e.g., JSON containing generated thought, meta-comments, etc.), leaving minor ambiguity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra context beyond schema descriptions, e.g., explaining that an empty 'thought' parameter will be AI-generated and that 'thought_number' can exceed initial estimates. This adds meaningful value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool is for dynamic, reflective problem-solving via Gemini AI. It includes specific usage scenarios and features. However, with no sibling tools, differentiation is not assessed, but the purpose is clear and distinct from a generic 'think' tool.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides a detailed list of when to use the tool, including breaking down complex problems, planning, and analysis needing course correction. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it, but the extensive positive guidance compensates.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/bartekke8it56w2/new-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server